Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
about rock of ages, the big surprise. we have nine states that have done it. in this past election, which i think is pivotal, four states did it completely by popular vote. no court ruling on rights, just public will. >> for the first time in 40 years in four states thanks to the efforts of chad and a lot of other people, for the first time there was a populist vote, and the people spoke. they have never spoken in favor before, but there are really two ways. it's also equal protection under the law and also that the court has found it to be a fundamental right. this is an extraordinary, extraordinary time, and -- >> let's cut this in two. there's two questions here. one is doma, the defense of marriage act. this administration will not defend it in the courts. if that gets struck down, what does that say to cases around the country where people have been allowed to marry in the same gender? chad, on that. what happens it doma gets struck down by the court, 5-4 or whatever? >> the ridiculously named defense of marriage act would be gone obviously. >> what would it mean to a gay pers
that have done it. in this past election, which i think is very pivotal, four states did it completely by popular vote. no court ruling on rights, just public will. >> for the first time in 40 years in four states, thanks to the efforts of chad and a lot of other people, for the first time there was a populist vote, and the people spoke. they have never spoken in favor before, but there are really two ways. it's also equal protection under the law and also that the court has found it to be a fundamental right. this is an extraordinary, extraordinary time, and -- >> let's cut this in two. there's two questions here. one is doma, the defense of marriage act. this administration will not defend it in the courts. if that gets struck down, what does that say to cases around the country where people have been allowed to marry in the same gender? chad, on that. what happens it doma gets struck down by the court, 5-4 or whatever? >> the ridiculously named defense of marriage act would be gone obviously. >> what would it mean to a gay person who is married? >> that would mean that couples who a
states that have done it. this past election i think is very pivotal. four states did it completely by popular vote. no court ruling on rights, public will. >> for the first time in 40 years, in four states, thanks to efforts of chad and a lot of other people, for the first time, there was a populous vote and the people spoke. they have never spoken in favor before. they're are really two ways, also equal pro-tukz tection und law and a fundamental right. this is an extraordinary time. >> two questions. one is doma, defense of marriage act. this administration won't defend it in the courts. if that gets struck down, what does that say to cases where people have been allowed to marry in the same gender. what happens if doma gets struck down by the court, 5-4, whatever. >> the ridiculously named defense of marriage act would be gone. >> what would it mean to a person married? >> that would bemean couples married in those states would be recognized by the federal government. would mean we still have a lot of work to do and depending how they rule in the prop 8 case we still need other s
after the election, we sent a plan to the president. we gave revenue, but looking for spending cuts. he took three weeks to come back to us. he's gone on still on the campaign trail, still working through. republicans have not waited to solve this problem. >> congressman is going to struggle with the numbers as mitt romney did during the debates. they don't add up. if you don't increase the tax rates on the highest 2%, you cannot generate enough revenue for deficit reduction. unfortunately, the changes in the tax code, which is republicans want to turn to will increase taxes and cut tax deductions for the middle class americans. >> all right. joining me now, contributing editor for the daily beast. we just heard from democratic senator there. does that sound like any progress has been made? as we talk about 23 days, that doesn't take into account we are looking at december 21st. if you happen to watch that on television, it looks like both sides are hardening. the cement is getting thicker. there's a growing recognition on the republican side that they have lost the debate over the high
do well. having said that, welcome again, mr. secretary. just days after the president's re-election, the f.h.a. released its 2012 actuarial report which revealed that the economic value of the f.h.a. fund has fallen to negative $16 billion. a lot of money. that means the fund's capital reserve ratio, as i understand it, now stands at a negative 1.44%. this news is obviously very disturbing to us and to the secretary. for those of us who have long been concerned about the health of the f.h.a. for years the problems of the federal housing administration have been well-known. during the housing boom, the f.h.a. unweissly, i thought, guaranteed -- unwisely, i thought, guaranteed millions of risky mortgages with low down payments to borrowers with poor credit scores. we are reaping that now. these mortgages have resulted in billions of losses to the f.h.a. the federal housing administration has made matters worse, i think, by failing to come to grips with the magnitude, mr. secretary, of the problems. back in 2007, as the federal housing administration's poor financial position was becom
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)